Google+ Followers

Saturday, 11 June 2016

Momentum - Its Time for Jon Lansman to Go

Jon Lansman asks us to ‘understand’ the Nakba –
the expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians

Palestinian refugees fleeing in 1948

Very little in
politics happens for no reason.When
Cameron asks us to help defeat ‘terrorism’ we can be sure that what he really means
is surveillance and repression at home [PREVENT] and imperialism abroad.‘Terrorism’ is never a word applied to our
friends, as the Saudis demonstrate daily in Yemen.Indeed our good friend Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda
in Yemen are virtually partners in the war against the people of Yemen.[see for example Saudi
Arabia and al-Qaeda Unite in Yemen]

Lansman explaining away the Nakba

Likewise when Jon
Lansman takes us on a tour of population exchanges and transfers in Europe,
before and after the last war we can assume that his purpose is not so much an
abstract academic exercise, or a hidden desire to explain the cruelties of
ethnic nationalism but as a means of exculpating Zionism from its expulsion of
the Palestinians in 1947-8.

Devastation of Palestinian Property in 1948

When someone asks us
to ‘understand’ the Nakba, when ¾ million Palestinians were made refugees and
thousands were massacred, the first thing to ask is where they are coming from. In the case of Jon Lansman its quite easy to
determine this question.

One of the many massacres in 1948

Lansman’s original
response to the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign of the Right and the Zionists, in the
shape of the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel, in the Labour
Party was to accept that there was an anti-Semitism problem. Indeed he was negotiating with the JLM and LF
though to what effect no one knows.

Marlene Ellis - the latest Black member to be suspended as Lansman watches on

It didn’t take a
brilliant mind to work out that if Jeremy Corbyn was being attacked last summer
for associating with holocaust deniers
then the chances were that the campaign against ‘anti-Semitism’ in Oxford
University Labour Club and the subsequent suspensions of mostly Black and
Muslim members of the LP had less to do with ‘anti-Semitism’ and more to do
with getting rid of Corbyn and attacking those who support the Palestinians.

There has been a
non-stop campaign against ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party since last
summer. When Ken Livingstone mentioned
the fact that Hitler supported Zionism, which was in all essentials true, he
was suspended amidst the normal hypocritical uproar by the mass media. What was Lansman’s response? To join in the calls for Livingstone’s
suspension of not expulsion. He was told
his career was over when that is more true of Lansman than anyone.

Yet Lansman has refused to draw any
conclusions. On the contrary he has
demobilised Momentum and turned it into a useless talking shop. Instead of mobilising nationally against the
witch hunt and against those MPs that are trying to bring Corbyn down, it has
done absolutely nothing. There has been
no national conference, no national leaflets, no anything. It is possible that the Right will win out in
the NEC elections in October. If so that
is down to the abysmal failure of Momentum to organise nationally and the fact
that Lansman has been an utter disaster preferring to appease the Right at a
time when they have been gunning for Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour's Transfer policy in 1944

The witch hunt against
anyone speaking out against the witch hunt is proceeding apace with news of the
suspension of Marlene Ellis from Black Connexions this week. Her offence?
Signing an open letter condemning the suspension of Ken
Livingstone! Our witch hunters don’t
like opposition and they therefore deemed that opposing the bogus anti-Semitism
witch hunt was in itself an act of anti-Semitism! As the Jewish Chronicle, which has been
driving the witch hunt explained:“Momentum activist
Marlene Ellis has been suspended from the Labour Party over a blog which
accused Jeremy Corbyn of playing “right into the hands of Zionist criminals” by
suspending Ken Livingstone.”

This is an expression
of her viewpoint. There is nothing
anti-Semitic in it. Yet what has been
the reaction of Jon Lansman? Has he
spoken out and condemned this attack by the Right on mainly Black, Muslim and
left-wing activists? Has he, as Chair of
Momentum, taken a lead in fighting back against the daily suspension of
activists? No, he has maintained
complete silence. Even worse he is now
rationalising the politics of those who are conducting the witch-hunt.

In
the first article he asked us not to mention the word ‘Zionism’ because we
might begin asking why there are Jewish only settlements in Israel. Why hundreds of Rabbis issue edicts calling
on Jews to refuse to rent flats or rooms to Arabs. Why Jewish residents of Afula call the
attempt by Arabs to purchase building plots the act of ‘terrorists’. Why there are pogroms against Black African
refugees in Tel-Aviv and the worlds largest detention centre for refugees in
Holot in the Negev desert. Why a book Borderlife depicting a relationship
between Arab and Jewish teenagers is banned from the high school syllabus for
threatening ‘Jewish national identity’ etc. etc.

Zionism
began as a mirror image of anti-Semitism in Europe. It took to heart its principles but it
reversed them. What the anti-Semites had
done to the Jews they were going to do to the native peoples of Palestine. So today being Jewish in Israel entitles you
to land rights, better employment, education, welfare benefits. Being Jewish is a matter of national and
racial pride. That is why Zionists love
to wrap the Israeli flag around themselves in ostentatious displays of
nationalist patriotism. It also
expresses itself in the chants of ‘death
to the Arabs and in the number of shops who display ‘kosher’ certificates
in their windows testifying that they don’t employ Arabs. Israel is not a state of its own citizens but
a state of the Jewish ‘nation’ – which includes not only its Jewish citizens
but Jews who are not citizens but part of the Jewish nation, even though living
outside the State.

And
let us be clear what Lansman is forgiving.
In the Jewish state that was allocated by Resolution 181 of the United
Nations, in November 1947 to the Zionists, the number of Palestinians was
approximately the same as the number of Jews.
The Zionist goal of an ethno-religious state was not compatible with an equal
number of residents being Jews and Arabs.
Israel was not the equivalent of the British state, which is nominally Christian
but in which no one really cares how many Christians there are. In Israel everything revolves around being
Jewish. It is a Jewish supremacist
state. Being Jewish is a national and
racial category.

Israel
is a settler colonial country. Its aim
is to ‘redeem’ the land for the Jewish nation, much as the Nazis believed in
the concept of a mystical attachment by the German Volk, who were connected by
blood, to its land. , Likewise Zionism believes that in the attachment of the
‘Jewish People’ to Eretz Yisrael, the
Land of Israel.

In
the seminal case of George Tamarin v
State of Israel in 1972 (a decision upheld in Uzzi Ornan vs State of Israel in 2013) Tamarin wanted his
nationality to be changed from ‘Jewish’ to ‘Israeli’. Chief Justice Agranat ruled that ‘the desire to create an Israeli nation
separate from the Jewish nation is not a legitimate aspiration. A division of
the population into Israeli and Jewish nations would … negate the foundation on
which the State of Israel was established.’ The court ruled that “There is no Israeli nation separate from
the Jewish People. The Jewish People is composed not only of those residing in
Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.”

And
therein lies the problem. If Israel was
a nation of all its citizens then Zionism would not rear its head. There would be equality between each citizen
in so far as this is ever attainable in a class society. But there is no such thing as an Israeli nation
because Israel lays claim to all Jews, the world over.

That is what makes
Israel an apartheid state. But for
Lansman it is some kind of national cultural state. Lansman attempts to equate the population
exchanges in Greece and Turkey that took place following the Convention on
Exchange of Populations of January 1923 as somehow equivalent to the
Nakba. They couldn’t be more different. In fact, after a million Greeks had already been
massacred, most Greeks fled from Turkey.
The exchanges such as they were occurred on religious not ethnic
grounds. In other words the exchange was
largely a myth.

Another example
Lansman gives to justify the expulsion of the Palestinians is the massive
repatriation of up to 2 million ethnic Germans, from Eastern and Central Europe
to Germany after WW2. The situation was again
completely different from that of the Palestinians. It was part of Nazi policy to enrol what they
termed the Volksdeutsche in a policy of German conquest of Europe. They were often unwilling to be co-opted but
in the atmosphere of the second world war many willingly supported the Nazi
party. In Czechoslovakia, the Sudeten
German Party gained a majority of the vote under Henlein and this provided the
pretext for the Nazi dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In Hungary the Swabian Volksdeutsche made up
most of the gendarmes who were responsible for rounding up, torturing and
incarcerating the Jews in brick yards prior to deportation.

This is not the time
or place to go into the history of the Volksdeutsche but there was clearly very
fierce resentment after the war at the fact that large numbers of them had
become Nazis and members of the Waffen SS and perpetrated numerous
massacres. They acted as colonists in
large parts of Poland, in particular the Warthegau and Silesia. In many ways their repatriation, bloody as it
undoubtedly was, was the expulsion of colonists.

The Palestinians did
not massacre Jews in Palestine, they were the subject of massacres. They were not employed by a foreign imperial
power to colonise other peoples’ land they were the ones who were
colonised. To compare the Palestinians
to the ethnic Germans in Europe is crass and racist and a justification of a
policy of racial exclusion. The same
policy the Nazis employed in Poland and elsewhere.

Lansman quotes from
the Labour Party’s 1944 resolution supporting the transfer of the Palestinians
out of Palestine to accommodate a Jewish state and sees this as some kind of
understandable reaction to the holocaust rather than for what it was. Labour’s policy through the 20th
century had been an imperialist one, in which it had justified the British
Empire by comforting itself that it was acting as a ‘trustees’ for the backwards
races. The Tories didn’t bother to
justify the Empire, it was their natural right to conquer the savages and to
utilise their resources. Labour
preferred to justify the same as helping to the same savages to civilisation. The Attlee government was one of the most exploitative
imperialist governments Britain has seen, conducting a ruthless
counter-insurgency war in Malaya against communist guerilllas in 1950-1. It was responsible for the super-exploitation
of the African colonies. At a time of a
chronic balance of payments deficit and having gone cap in hand to the United
States in 1945 for a $3 billion loan, British imperialism under Labour had
to ruthlessly exploit its colonies.

Once a Labour
government took power it was faced with an entirely different scenario. They wanted for strategic reasons to hang on
to Palestine but the Zionists’ terrorist militias took up arms against them
culminating in the Irgun’s bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946,
which acted as a headquarters for the British military, in which over 100
people, including many Jews, were killed.
The Stern Gang followed this up in 1948 with the assassination of Count
Folk Bernadotte, the Swedish UN mediator who had saved thousands of Jews from
the camps at the end of the war by personally interceding with Himmler.

The United States,
which wanted to see Britain decolonise (not for altruistic reasons but because
it wanted to gain a share of the colonial markets which Britain’s preferential
trade system and the sterling pool kept isolated) pressed Britain to admit the
Jewish Displaced Persons from the camps in Europe. As Ernest Bevin remarked of the Americans, they
wanted Jews to come to Palestine because they didn’t want them in the United
States! It caused offence but it was
true. There was nothing anti-Semitic about
this as Lansman implies.

The USA had extremely
rigid anti-Semitic immigration controls post-war, which the Zionists supported
to the hilt. Indeed the Zionists were
amongst the most vociferous opponents of lowering the immigration barriers
because they didn’t want Jews to go to the USA as opposed to Palestine. They repeated this in the 1970’s and 1980’s
with the emigration of Soviet Jews when they lobbied Reagan and the United
States not to admit Soviet Jewish refugees. When Morris Ernst, a non-Zionist
Jewish lawyer, was asked by Roosevelt to draw up a post-war resettlement plan
for Jewish refugees ‘Jewish leaders
decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor. At one dinner party I was openly accused of
furthering this plan of freer immigration in order to undermine political
Zionism.’ [Robert Silverberg, If I
Forget Thee O Jerusalem, p.334, Pyramid Book, New York, 1972.

Lansman argues that it
wasn’t the Zionist colonisation up till 1945 but the holocaust which was
responsible for founding the Israeli state.
As a matter of simple historical fact this is nonsense. The Zionist movement began colonisation in
Palestine from 1882 with the Biluim and
in earnest from the second Labour Zionist aliyah in 1904, that is over 40 years
before 1947. The refugees from the
holocaust were directed towards Palestine despite their wish to go to the United
States by a combination of American anti-Semitism and Zionism. The Zionist movement and the Hagannah
terrorist group were allowed to operate in the European displaced persons camps
and in many cases through violence the refugees were coerced into accepting
that their destination was Palestine. Lansman
suggests that the reason Israel was created ‘ was the
Holocaust, the plight of the survivors seeking safe refuge.’ Israel certainly didn’t provide a safe
refuge. One-third of those who died in
the 1947-8 war were holocaust survivors and that was one reason that the
Israeli state wanted them so badly, They
needed conscripts for their militias and new found colonial army.

Lansman
argues that ‘only truth can bring reconciliation.’ Unfortunately a deliberate re-writing of
history is not the way of achieving that object. Lansman however isn’t merely engaged in
rewriting history but in attempting to lay the basis for Labour’s acceptance of
an Israeli state which is to this very day ‘Judaising’ parts of Israel with
relatively few Jews such as the Galilee, Negev and Jerusalem. What Lansman wants is Labour’s endorsement
for Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing and colonisation.

For
the main left-wing group in the Labour Party, Momentum, to have as its
Chairperson a Zionist supporter is absurd.
Zionism is the antithesis of socialism.
It posits not the unity of the working-class but the unity of the Jewish
people. That was why the Labour Zionists
‘trade union’, which was in fact a large colonising agency, the Histadrut,
banned Arabs from membership until 1959.

As
David HaCohen, Managing Director of Histadrut’s building company Solel Boneh
explained:

‘I
had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact
that I would not accept Arabs in my Trade Union, the Histadrut; to defend
preaching to housewives that they should not buy at Arab stores; to defend the
fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs
there... to pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the
markets and smash Arab eggs they had bought... to buy dozens of dunums from an
Arab is permitted but to sell God forbid one Jewish dunum to an Arab is
prohibited; to take Rothschild the incarnation of capitalismas a socialist and to name him the
'benefactor' - to do all that was not easy.’ [Ha’aretz 15.11.69.]